AIBU?
To think Nick Ross is having some kind of midlife crisis/nervous breakdown
Alisvolatpropiis · 03/06/2013 01:49
After the deeply unpleasant article on rape,Mr Ross has decided to share that he would "probably watch child pornograhpy". That cannot be the admission of a man thinking clearly? Deeply disturbing.
www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10094749/Id-probably-watch-child-porn-admits-former-Crimwwatch-presenter-Nick-Ross.html
TotallyBursar · 03/06/2013 03:01
Can't help but simply nod along in agreement with MrsTP.
I would be deeply concerned if I were his family. I cannot see this ending well.
Now Max Clifford is out of action I wonder how much unfiltered opinion will ooze out like this.
Not meaning to imply a connection between them both but I did have a passing wonder about what might have been going on betwixt mouth & media that stopped however many people outing themselves.
I never had any thoughts one way or the other on Ross - not really on my radar, but was he spouting this while on crimewatch? Behind the scenes either people knew what he was like or he has suddenly become vile.
RubyOnRails · 03/06/2013 04:37
I'm almost as disgusted at the fact that he referred to it as "fuss". Would a normal person say "If somebody were to ask me would you like to watch a video if somebody dying humiliatingly, I'd probably say yes, to see what the fuss is about".
How you can trivialise human suffering like that is appalling. That he is a journalist is no defence, I hate the way they think they are entitled to spout if this shit. It's like Amanda platells disgusting article in DM last week which basically described frame by frame some schoolgirl pornigraphy, it just came across as entirely salacious and voyeuristic.
Leverette · 03/06/2013 07:07
This reply has been deleted
Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.
KatyTheCleaningLady · 03/06/2013 07:42
That was such a weird thing to read.
I sort of understand what I think he was saying about the child porn. I thinking many people would click on a link out of pure morbid curiosity, especially if they thought they would not get into any trouble. I know people who have done that with other disturbing things on the Internet (and I have heard them say that they wished they hadn't.) I don't assume that he has sexual interest in children.
But then he goes on about races being good at certain crimes, and I realise that he sounds like he's lost the plot. Taken in context with the things he said about rape, and I think he really has issues.
FreudiansSlipper · 03/06/2013 08:08
West Indians are more likely to mug people and are good at it, does that mean the Irish and those from Arab Countries oh what the hell I shall say it Muslims are better are making bombs and using them in the most destructive way let's ignore who invented the atom bomb and who is the only country to use it against another
And report after report done by those professionally that investigate such matters have claimed that the police force is institutionally racist but thankfully Nick Ross is here to but them right there is no proof
I agree when someone tells you who they are always listen
TheBigJessie · 03/06/2013 10:09
KatyTheCleaningLady True. There's a lot of people who have looked at things they shouldn't have out of curiosity. On a milder scale, every time someone says "don't google dragon butter" about ten lurkers do.
But on the other hand, is he actually being perceptive and honest about how we click on things and live to regret it, or is this a far more casual attitude?
?I think if someone came to me and said: 'Would you like to see what all the fuss is about??, I?m sorry, I probably would say yes.?
Seriously? Who would say yes to that offer? Even in an online thread, as opposed to real-life, I feel doubtful.
BreconBeBuggered · 03/06/2013 10:35
See, at first I thought he was trying to make a point about morbid curiosity. Doing it spectacularly badly, but making a point nonetheless. Then I read the bits about certain races being better at particular crimes, and I realised that this whole speech wasn't so much an argument as a set of symptoms.
Lazyjaney · 03/06/2013 10:50
He is he is just pointing out what people do/research says - that a lot of people will watch stuff online to see what the fuss is about (none of the pious con here would - or at least admit it, of course) and that statistically some crimes are more common in certain countries/communities.
DreamsTurnToGoldDust · 03/06/2013 10:51
How can someone just come across child pornography? You have to search for it. Hes coming across as a, very unstable and b, as though he knows Yewtree are coming for him.
Personally, I think people like him need to be put out to pasture, hes wittering on like an idiot.
EldritchCleavage · 03/06/2013 11:00
First of all, he's calling it 'child pornography'. The deputy head of CEOPS was on BBC News the other day and corrected Clive Myrie, saying that term gives it too much legitimacy, CEOPS calls them 'images of child abuse' or 'obscene images of children'.
Second of all, NR is implying that it is natural and understandable to look at child abuse images out of curiosity, whereas I don't think it is either of those things. That's the excuse most of the people caught with such images probably use, and it is a shame NR has been thoughtless enough to give that explanation credence. People should have some bloody self-discipline.
And then he refers to 'fuss'. OK, maybe it's just careless language, but that sounds rather dismissive to me. You can argue about criminalising simple naked images of children being 'fuss' (not that I would, given the propensities it feeds) but all of it? Even the level 5 images? It is an odd and really unfortunate choice of words for me.
When you put this together with the rape remarks, which didn't seem fully to recognise women's absolute rights over their own bodies, there seems to be a severe empathy deficit in NR. And the race/crime thing? Has all the research and discussion on this since the 1950s completely passed him by?
Send that man on a sociology degree course, pronto.
scarletforya · 03/06/2013 11:16
I don't know who he is but what an offensive arse.
As for clicking on child abuse images out of 'morbid curiousity' or 'to see what the fuss is about' .........words fail me.
Images of children being abused are created using real children and that is so horrific and disturbing even the thought and knowledge of it really distresses and horrifies me. Don't look at it for any reason. I think it's morally wrong to look at it. It supports this sick 'industry'. Clicking on it makes one complicit imo.
The only people who have to look at this stuff are police and specially trained ones at that. Those people have an awful job. I don't know how they do it. 'morbid curiousity' should not come into it.
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.